WHAT DOES THE WORLD REALLY WANT FROM THE NEXT GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT GOALS?

Ensuring that the world’s poor define the post-2015 framework.

Ben Leo with Khai Hoan Tram1

Ben Leo is Global Policy Director at the ONE Campaign. Khai Hoan Tram is a Research Assistant on the Global Policy team. We wish to thank Andy Sumner, Charles Kenny, Owen Barder, Michael Clemens, Nancy Birdsall, and several anonymous reviewers for their constructive suggestions and comments on earlier drafts of this paper. The author is solely responsible for any errors in fact or judgment.

1

2

Over three years before they are due to take effect, the quest to establish the next round of global development goals has begun. It will have a profound effect on the lives of the world’s poorest people. At a UN Heads of State Summit in September 2013, the direction of and process for finalizing the new goals will be agreed. Between now and then, a group of international policymakers, politicians, and technocrats have been effectively deputized to take this monumental effort forward. Against this backdrop, there is a growing list of recommendations, with different groups arguing that the focus of a new development agenda should be on jobs and growth, or governance, or environmental sustainability, or the maintenance of the existing goals. In many ways, the debate is driven by fundamentally different views about the value and role of global goals. For some, the post-2015 framework should focus solely on development priorities that span national, regional, and global lines. An alternative view is that the framework should focus on global goods and challenges, such as climate change, pandemics, and other issues.

While discussions about these varying visions take place, all relevant parties must remain focused on continuing to drive progress against the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The existing global development framework has mobilized and channeled unparalleled actions from a broad range of actors, including developing and developed country governments, non-governmental actors, and the private sector. Many developing countries have achieved unparalleled rates of improvement on the existing MDGs: reducing child mortality, combatting HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other infectious diseases, and increasing school enrolment. These robust results illustrate both the power of

aspirational global goals and the necessity of continuing to accelerate progress over the next three years. With respect to the post-2015 exercise, a central question remains whether the formal and informal UN-led processes will truly capture what the global development goals’ target audience actually wants – that is to say, the priorities and concerns of the world’s poorest people. There is a risk that the next generation of global goals will be dominated by specific interest group agendas. Undoubtedly, the existing UN consultation process marks a significant improvement from previous exercises. It will bring together a broader range of stakeholder views and perspectives than before, particularly from businesses and civil society. However, the emerging process may have a critical gap: it is not clear that it will directly solicit views from the post-2015 framework’s intended beneficiaries – the world’s poorest citizens – in a quantitative, representative way. This raises significant concerns about the comprehensiveness and credibility of the UN-led process, its adherence to the principals that are supposed to underpin it, and ultimately the relevance of the post-2015 framework.

This paper examines these issues in detail and is organized as follows. Section II provides a summary of the existing UN-led consultation process. Sections III and IV focus on the appropriate consultative role for the world’s poor and utilizes existing survey data to gauge household concerns and priorities in three specific regions – Sub-Saharan Africa, East Asia, and Latin America. Lastly, section V outlines a number of specific recommendations for how the UN and other key stakeholders could improve the post-2015 development framework process.

Introduction

3

The UN has launched a broad-based process to solicit input from a variety of stakeholders about the post-2015 framework. Its objective is to: (1) establish a strategic coalition of partners; (2) ensure that the post-2015 agenda addresses emerging development priorities and challenges; and (3) builds on the momentum of and lessons learned from the existing MDGs. Currently, the UN-led consultation process is envisaged to run through September 2013. Invariably, additional consultative mechanisms and activities will take place between September 2013 and end-2015. However, the structure and breadth of these activities has not been fully developed or agreed.

Country ConsultationsBetween now and March 2013, the UN Development Group (UNDG) will be conducting national consultations in at least 50, and potentially up to 100, developing countries.2 The targeted participants include: NGOs, community-based organizations, universities and research institutions, private sector entities, interest groups (trade unions, employers’ organizations, advocacy groups), semi-governmental actors (national human rights institutions or ombudsmen), and political decision makers.3 The process will be highly decentralized and driven by country-level UNDG teams. Despite quality control efforts, such as circulation of consultation guidelines, the robustness and effectiveness of country-level mechanisms will likely be varied. The UNDG teams will submit formal country-level

reports by end-March 2013, which outline key themes and findings from the stakeholder consultations.

Thematic ConsultationsBetween now and June 2013, nine thematic consultations will take place with academics, media, businesses, trade unions, and civil society. The individual processes will be coordinated by UN specialized agencies with an official purview over the respective issues and co-chaired by two UN Member States (one developed country and one developing country). The nine topics include: (1) inequality (across all dimensions, including gender); (2) health; (child and maternal mortality, plus communicable and non-communicable diseases); (3) education (primary, secondary, tertiary and vocational); (4) growth and employment; (5) environmental sustainability (access to energy, biodiversity, and climate change); (6) food security and nutrition; (7) governance; (8) conflict and fragility; and (9) population dynamics.

High-Level Panel In August 2012, the UN Secretary General appointed a High-Level Panel of Eminent Persons (HLP) to provide advice and recommendations on the post-2015 global development agenda.4 The Panel will deliver its findings to UN Member States in the first half of 2013. According to the HLP’s terms of reference, it will provide:

MDGs 2.0 Process & Stakeholder Consultations

The announced country consultations include: Algeria, Angola, Armenia, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Central African Republic, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guatemala, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Laos, Mali, Malawi, Mauritius, Moldova, Morocco, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Saint Lucia, Senegal, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sudan, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Timor-Leste, Togo, Turkey, Uganda, Vietnam, and Zambia. The UNDG-led consultation process reportedly may be expanded to include up to 100 developing countries.

UNDG (2012), Post-2015 Development Agenda: Guidelines for Country Dialogues, page 21

The HLP is co-chaired by David Cameron (UK Prime Minister), Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (President of Indonesia), Ellen Johnson Sirleaf (President of Liberia). Members include: Fulbert Gero Amoussouga (Benin), Vanessa Petrelli Corrêa (Brazil), Yingfan Wang (China), Maria Angela Holguin (Colombia), Gisela Alonso (Cuba), Jean-Michel Severino (France), Horst Kohler (Germany), Naoto Kan (Japan), H.M. Queen Rania of Jordan (Jordan), Betty Maina (Kenya), Abhijit Banerjee (India), Andris Piebalgs (Latvia), Patricia Espinosa (Mexico), Paul Polman (Netherlands), Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala (Nigeria), Elvira Nabiullina (Russian Federation), Graça Machel (South Africa), Sung-Hwan Kim (Republic of Korea), Gunilla Carlsson (Sweden), Emilia Pires (Timor-Leste), Kadir Topbaş (Turkey), John Podesta (United States), Tawakel Karman (Yemen), and Amina J. Mohammed (ex officio). For additional details, see www.un.org/millenniumgoals/Press%20release_post-2015panel.pdf.

2

3

4

4

Recommendations about the vision and shape of a post-2015 development agenda, which will respond to 21st century global challenges and build upon the existing MDGs, particularly their focus on ending poverty;

Principles for reshaping the global development partnership and strengthening accountability mechanisms; and

Recommendations for building and sustaining political consensus around an ambitious, achievable agenda that addresses issues of economic growth, social equality, and environmental sustainability.

1

2

3

Consultative Web Platform In July 2012, the UN and civil society committed to launch a web platform (www.worldwewant2015.org) to stimulate and channel global conversations about the post-2015 framework. While these conversations are designed to feed into the various UN-led processes (e.g., HLP report, and country and thematic consultations), the specific modalities are still under development.

Sustainable Development Goals At the Rio+20 Summit in June 2012, participants established the Intergovernmental Working Group (IWG) to develop options and recommendations for a new set of sustainable development goals. The IWG will consist of 30 country representatives, which will be nominated by different regions and announced in September 2012. It will submit a report to the UN General Assembly for consideration during its 65th session (September 2013-September 2014). It remains somewhat unclear how this process will be directly or indirectly linked to the post-2015 global development framework process in practice – particularly given the existence of several environment-related UN processes and bodies (e.g., UNFCCC).

5

Notwithstanding this impressive program of consultation, there is a real risk that the most critical voices will be largely missing – the world’s poorest citizens. The UN and other stakeholders, including the High-Level Panel, should seek to ensure that their views, priorities, and aspirations will be directly consulted and strongly considered. This will advance both substantive and procedural processes. Several groups, such as the Institute of Development Studies (IDS), are developing some promising qualitative-based approaches to consult the world’s poor. These efforts should be commended, further scaled, and complemented with rigorous quantitative initiatives. The credibility of the UN-led consultation process and the post-2015 framework depends on ensuring that the world’s poorest citizens, including marginalized groups, had a direct role in helping to shape them. Simply put, a global development agenda for the world’s poorest citizens that does not actually reflect their priorities would represent a failure to empower the world’s poor to speak up for themselves, determine their own futures, and set their own agenda. All of these considerations must be recognized and supported through any post-2015 development framework. Ultimately, the respective decision makers will not be able to make fully informed choices on the post-2015 framework unless the world’s poorest citizens are consulted directly. Relatedly, the potential for a global development agenda to maximize the positive impact on the lives of the world’s poorest citizens will be significantly enhanced if the new global development goals are aligned with the most pressing concerns as expressed by the world’s poor.

Moreover, the collection of methodologically-robust household survey data will help to narrow deliberative discussions and contentious, diverse positions amongst the variety of stakeholders (e.g., governments, businesses, civil society, and development experts). In this manner, the starting point for discussions could reflect and build upon the world’s poorest citizens’ stated priorities. Absent this information, stakeholder groups likely will vociferously assert their own well-intentioned priorities. In this manner, global household survey data will establish an informational foundation and force parties to take into account the concerns and priorities of the world’s poor while constructing a post-2015 framework.

BOX 1: What the World Wants Poll

Coverage and Scale The What the World Wants poll would be global and cover both developed and developing countries.

Questionnaire ScopeA standardized set of questions would be answered in all countries. Additional customized questions could be posed in certain country groupings.5 A group of external technical advisors should be included both in developing and vetting the questionnaire to ensure quality control, focus, and proper targeting of post-2015 issues and framing. The broad survey categories could include:

• What the World Wants: What are your most pressing priorities? What would have the greatest impact on your life and future prospects over the next 15 years? What concerns remain unaddressed?

• Existing MDGs Impact: How has life changed over the last decade? What has improved?

Required Timeframe and CostBased upon consultations with several international polling organizations, the proposed global survey would take roughly two months to prepare and another 8-10 months to execute. The execution phase would include both field-based collection of individual and household responses and data aggregation and packaging. At the same time, country-level results would become available on a rolling basis over the next six to twelve months – thereby enabling an opportunity to communicate preliminary findings and trends. The cost for a global survey would be in the range of a few million US dollars.

Survey MethodologyThe international polling organization would deploy a combination of telephone and in-person interviews to solicit and record survey responses. This approach must ensure a representative sample across multiple demographic groups (rural/urban, income, education level, gender, etc.) and include marginalized populations. Industry examples, such as the regional barometer surveys (e.g., Afrobarometer, East Asian Barometer, and Latin Barometer) and Gallup’s World Poll, demonstrate a proven and internationally-recognized track record in this context.

The Missing Voices – The World’s Poorest Citizens

6

Going forward, the implementation of a methodologically-robust, representative global survey would be the most effective approach for soliciting and aggregating the poor’s concerns and priorities. However, the proposed global survey likely will take up to one year to complete. For reasons stated above, this time requirement and complications with existing UN-led consultation processes do not obviate the need for a global survey or reduce the benefit of such an exercise. Nonetheless, it does mean that some of the envisioned UN country and thematic consultations would take place without the benefit of findings from new standardized household surveys.6 In this context, it is vitally important to examine and thoroughly understand such survey information about household concerns and priorities in developing countries that already exists.

There are a variety of publicly-available sources of household-level views, including the regional barometers (Afrobarometer, East Asian Barometer, and Latin Barometer), Gallup World Poll, and other regular or periodic surveys. Despite some methodological limitations and challenges (see details below), the regional barometer surveys are a particularly valuable resource for the post-2015 framework exercise. Each organization has included a series of open-ended survey questions over the last decade that provides insights into country- and regional-level concerns and priorities. Moreover, some organizations also gather information on household perceptions of government performance at addressing specific issues, such as social service delivery (e.g., healthcare, education, HIV/AIDS), infrastructure requirements (e.g., water and sanitation), job creation, and addressing living standards of the poor. Taken together,

this information can provide an insight into what individuals may prioritize and seek within the post-2015 development framework.

Methodological Overview and LimitationsThe regional barometers cover a total of 47 developing countries and the near majority of the UNDG consultation countries (23 out of 50). This includes 20 countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, 9 countries in East Asia, and 18 Latin American countries (see appendix I for details). The aggregated sample size totals nearly 56,000 respondents – with country-level samples ranging between 887 in Cambodia to 2,717 in China. Nearly every African country has a survey sample size of 1,200. All regional barometer questionnaire interviews are conducted on a face-to-face basis. Afrobarometer and the East Asian Barometer solicit households’ top three responses about their most pressing concerns. In contrast, Latin Barometer only registers respondents’ first response.

Our analysis focuses exclusively on the survey questions gauging household views about their most pressing concerns and about their perception of their government’s effectiveness at addressing a range of issues. For the most pressing concern question, we have aggregated survey responses into general issue categories (e.g., incomes/poverty, infrastructure, and governance).7 Appendix II contains a full list of the general issues and our categorization of the survey responses. In nearly every case, the categorization was straightforward.8 The issue coverage across the different regional barometer questionnaires is largely comparable and comprehensive. The only major exception is that Latin Barometer does not include a specific response category for agriculture or food security-related issues.

What Do Existing Surveys Say?

Developed country respondents could be asked about the importance of supporting the aspirations and needs of the world’s poorest citizens. In contrast, developing country respondents could be asked about the most appropriate role for developed countries.

However, unrelated (yet highly relevant) survey data collection will become available on rolling basis over the coming months. This information should directly feed into the formal UN-led country consultations.

Afrobarometer includes 41 individual survey response options; Latin Barometer includes 31; and the East Asian Barometer includes 73.

Only two survey response options proved somewhat challenging to categorize. First, while we included “science and technology” as an education-related concern; a case could be made that it could be classified as infrastructure (part of information, communication, and technology). Second, we included “political instability/ethnic tensions” as a governance-related concern. However, it could be considered as a security- or demographic-related concern. However, neither of these issues have a material impact on broader findings and trends. Since all survey response data is publicly-available, researchers and stakeholders can further aggregate, disaggregate, or modify the categories contained in this analysis.

5

6

7

8

7

• Lack of Arab, South Asian, and Central Asian Survey Data: While an Arab Barometer exists, the survey does not include a question concerning household views about their most pressing concerns. Overall, the 47 countries with regional barometer data account for approximately 50 percent of the total number of people living in developing countries (2.94 billion out of 5.84 billion).9 The largest excluded countries are: India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Egypt, Iran, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. These seven countries account for nearly two-thirds of the developing country population without existing barometer survey coverage. Moreover, they are home to very large numbers of people living in extreme poverty – thereby creating significant gaps for the post-2015 framework process.

• Inconsistent Timeframe Coverage Across Regions: This is most problematic for East Asia, which only has publicly-available household survey data between 2005 and 2008.10 For Sub-Saharan Africa, the most recent available survey data is from 2008/2009.11 Latin America has the most recent household response data (2010). Given this, our analysis has a built-in inter-temporal bias across the regions. By illustration, African households may have been significantly less worried about food security-related issues, when compared to East Asian nations, in 2006 than they were in 2008 and 2009. The global food price crisis probably accounted for the difference. Given the apples-to-oranges comparison, appropriate caution should be given when interpreting generalized and regionally-focused trends.

Source: World Bank, World Development Indicators database and author’s calculations.

East Asian Barometer survey data is available between 2001 and 2003; however, it does not include questions about households’ most pressing concerns until later years.

Although, Afrobarometer teams are currently in the process of completing their round five questionnaire. This updated information will become available for individual African countries on a rolling basis over the coming months.

9

10

11

For this exercise, there are two important limitations with the barometer survey data:

8

Global & Regional Trends Despite these methodological challenges, several clear global trends emerge from the regional barometer survey results:

• Household Incomes Are Key: Households across Sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, and East Asia overwhelmingly prioritize income-related issues (e.g., unemployment, wage levels, destitution, and youth employment). Roughly one-in-three respondents cite these issues as their most pressing concern.12 In 45 out of the 47 examined countries, income-related issues registered as the first, second, or third most frequent response to households’ top concern.13 This should not be particularly surprising; one could convincingly argue that families could best and sustainably address their needs and aspirational goals through steady, adequate income generation.

• Agriculture & Food Security Feature Large: Agriculture and food security issues ranked relatively high as household priorities in both Sub-Saharan Africa and East Asia.14 Roughly one-in-seven respondents cite this as their top priority. Moreover, there is a wide variation across countries, which may be driven by agriculture-dependent economies and/or countries that are vulnerable to dramatic climatic events (e.g., droughts and floods). By illustration, two-thirds of Cambodians and more than half of Malawians cite agriculture and food security as their number one priority.

Regional response rates include: Sub-Saharan Africa (36 percent); Latin America (31 percent); and East Asia (30 percent).

The only exceptions are China and Taiwan. As noted previously, the Latin Barometer questionnaire methodology only solicits households’ first response – while Afrobarometer and the East Asian Barometer record three responses.

As noted, the Latin Barometer questionnaire does not include these issues as a possible response category.

It is worth nothing that the regional barometer surveys only included adults or individuals above a certain age. This may lead to a dynamic where parents could identify economic opportunity concerns for their own lives, but prioritize health and education for their children. The proposed What the World Wants Poll should be designed to systematically address this potential dynamic.

Afrobarometer data does not register environment- or global warming-based concerns at all. As noted earlier, this reflects open-ended survey questions about households’ most pressing concerns.

12

13

14

15

16

• Social Service Delivery Advances May Be Driving Lower Priority Levels: Issues of social service delivery consistently ranked lower as a top concern across the examined regions, although they tend to appear more frequently as second or third priorities.15 Health-related issues polled high, or even relatively high, in only three middle-income countries (Botswana, Brazil, and Chile). Education was not a high, or even relatively high, response in any African, Latin American, or East Asian country. These results largely hold across different demographic groupings (income level, urban/rural, gender, age, and education level). Importantly, this does not suggest that households are not worried about healthcare or education. To some extent, the results likely also reflect increasing satisfaction with government delivery of such services over the last decade (see figure 4 for additional details).

• Environmental Concerns Fail to Register as a High Priority: Households raised environment- and global warming-based concerns at strikingly low levels. For East Asian and Latin American respondents, these concerns appear as rounding errors compared to other issues (roughly 0.8 percent of household responses). Based on available data, it appears that African survey respondents did not raise environment-related concerns in any statistically-significant way.16

9

KEY:

Incomes/Poverty Economy Infrastructure Security Governance Agriculture Health Education

Global & Regional Trends: Most Pressing Concerns

CHILE

10

Figure 1: Most Pressing Concerns: Africa, East Asia, and Latin America

Incomes/Poverty

Econ.Management

Infrastructure Agr.Food Security

Security Governance Health Education GeneralGov’t

Demographics OtherDon’t Know

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

KEY:

Africa East Asia Latin America

% o

f Sur

vey

Resp

onde

nts

36%

30%

31%

26%

12%

15% 15%

19%

13%

3%

5%

3%

13%

8%

5%

2%

5%

4%

3%4% 4%

2% 2%1%

0% 0%0% 0%

2%

34%

2%

1%

Source: Afrobarometer (2008-2009), East Asian Barometer (2005-2008), Latin Barometer (2010)

11

Beyond these clear global trends, there are several region-specific priorities. Each examined region has at least one or two issues that appear particularly important, but relatively less important for other regions.

• In Africa, Infrastructure is a Critical Issue: Roughly one-in-six respondents in Sub-Saharan Africa cite infrastructure (e.g., electricity, roads, water supply) as their top priority.17 The survey data suggests that infrastructure is especially important for rural inhabitants and individuals with low education levels. This is consistent with the argument that infrastructure provides essential access to services and economic opportunities. Not surprisingly, regional institutions, such as the African Union and African Development Bank, are focused heavily on addressing infrastructure deficits through regional initiatives, financing, and regulatory policy assistance. In contrast, infrastructure appears to be a relatively low priority in Latin America and East Asia.

• Latin American Security & Crime Concerns are Ominously High: Security-related concerns are the most frequently cited response in nearly half of the examined Latin American countries (8 out of 18). In fact, an absolute majority cited security as their most pressing concern in four countries (El Salvador, Guatemala, Panama, and Venezuela). Overall, roughly one-in-three Latin American respondents cite this as their number one priority. By comparison, only one-in-twenty households cited security-related issues as their most pressing concern in 2000 (see appendix IV). Along with household incomes, security and crime are clearly at the top of the current list of regional priorities.

• East Asian Economic Management & Governance: Two additional issues appear to be of particular concern in East Asian countries – economic management (e.g., credit availability, inflation, budget deficits, and general economic policies) and governance (e.g., institutional capacity, corruption, political freedoms, and political interference). Roughly one-in-four respondents cite economic management as their most pressing concern; and approximately one-in-eight cite governance-related issues.18

Demographic Sensitivity AnalysisOverall, there is a high degree of consistency in household concerns when cross-tabulated with a range of demographic variables (income level, gender, education, urban/rural, and age). Appendix V contains a series of sensitivity analysis tables. However, several of the interesting disparities across different demographic groupings include:

• African Youth Unemployment Bulge: African youth (aged 18 to 29) are significantly more concerned with income- and employment-related issues than other age groups. There is also an urban/rural dynamic at play; with nearly half of urban African youth citing income- and employment-related issues as their most pressing concern (compared to roughly one-in-three rural youth). Interestingly, youth populations in East Asia and Latin America exhibit roughly comparable concerns about income-related issues as older demographic groups.

• Latin American Poorest Focused on Incomes: Nearly one-in-two Latin Americans with a “very bad” socioeconomic status cite income- or employment-related issues as their most pressing concern (43.6 percent).

• East Asian Poor & Economic Management: East Asians in the bottom income quintile appear significantly more concerned about economic management-related issues.19 On the other hand, they are slightly less worried about agriculture- or food security-related issues. Interestingly, the poorest East Asians exhibit a roughly equivalent level of concern about income and poverty-related issues as the wealthiest cohort (34.7 percent versus 33.4 percent).

• Rural Infrastructure and Food Security: When compared to urban households, rural African and East Asian respondents appear to be roughly twice as concerned about agriculture/food security and infrastructure issues.

African businesses also cite infrastructure as “major constraints” to their operations and expansion potential. For example, 68 percent of surveyed African businesses cite access to reliable electricity as a “major constraint”. Nearly 40 percent cite transport infrastructure. See appendix VI for details.

Household respondents cite economic management as of particular concern in Taiwan (46.1 percent), Philippines (43.3 percent), Thailand (35.8 percent), and China (27.6 percent). Governance-related concerns are raised most frequently in Mongolia (21.9 percent), Vietnam (17.6 percent), China (15.4 percent), Taiwan (14.1 percent), and Philippines (13.2 percent).

Specifically, 31.5 percent of respondents cite this as their most pressing concerns compared to 20.8 percent of top income quartile respondents.

17

18

19

12

Country Income Category & Fragility AnalysisThe key global trends also largely hold when household survey responses are categorized by country income levels – low-income countries (LICs), lower middle-income countries (LMICs), and upper middle-income countries (UMICs) – as well as fragility levels. However, several sub-themes emerge, such as:

• LICs’ Concerns Equally Dispersed Between Incomes & Agriculture: Households in the poorest countries tend to prioritize household income-related and agriculture and food security-related issues at a commensurate level. Put differently, agriculture and food security registers as a significantly higher concern in low-income countries – which may be intertwined with broader income-related concerns.20

• Fragile Countries’ Focus on Economic Priorities: Fragile states are overwhelmingly focused on concerns that directly or indirectly impact income-related issues (e.g., employment/poverty, economic management, infrastructure, and agriculture/food security).21 Collectively, these issues account for approximately 84 percent of households’ responses about their most pressing concerns. Counter-intuitively, security-related concerns appear to be lower first-order priorities in fragile states.

Figure 2: Most Pressing Concerns: By Country Income Category & Fragility22

Incomes/Poverty

Econ.Management

Infrastructure AgricultureSecurity Governance Health Education

KEY:

LICs LMICs UMICs Fragile

26%

39%

33%

30%

13%

16%

15%

18%

16%

6%

3%

16%

3%

13%

27%

2%

4%

8%

7%

4%

26%

15%

10%

20%

5%

3%

6%

5%4%

3% 3% 4%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

Source: Afrobarometer (2008-2009), East Asian Barometer (2005-2008), Latin Barometer (2010)

Agriculture accounts for roughly 70 percent of Africans’ livelihoods and the majority of the examined low-income countries reside in Africa (11 out of 12). Therefore, it is not surprising to find that the respective, surveyed households may raise agriculture and income-related concerns in equal measures.

20 Of the 47 countries, seven are defined by the OECD as “fragile” (Burkina Faso, Kenya, Liberia, Malawi, Nigeria, Uganda, and Zimbabwe). This represents a relatively small sample of all “fragile” countries. Therefore, appropriate caution should be applied when considering these findings.

21 All household response rates represent a simple average across countries in the respective income categories. Weighted averages were considered as well, but did not generate material differences.

22

13

Time-Trend AnalysisWhile the most recent survey data provides an instructive insight into widely-held concerns and priorities in developing countries, it is also helpful to examine how responses may have changed over time. While time-trend analysis is susceptible to year-to-year fluctuations, it can provide a constructive (partial) view into how household concerns may have been reduced over the intervening years, or in some instances, have grown significantly (e.g., security in Latin America). Due to the lack of extensive East Asia time series survey data, only trends for Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America are examined. Several generalized and regional-based trends are worth noting:

• Health and Education Progress: Several existing MDG-related issues have shown significant improvement over time. In Sub-Saharan Africa, the percentage of households citing health or education as their most pressing concern was cut by at least half between 1999/2001 and 2008/9 (health dropped from 10 percent to 5 percent and education declined from 8 percent to 4 percent) in comparable countries.23 The same generalized trend occurred in Latin America between 2000 and 2010.24

• African Income and Poverty Concerns Are on the Rise: While African households have become less worried about health, education, and several other issues (e.g., security and governance), they have become more concerned with income-related matters (see figure 3). Between 1999/2001 and 2008/9, the percentage of survey respondents citing these issues as their number one concern increased from roughly 30 percent to approximately 37 percent.25

• Latin American Income Concerns Are Declining, But Still High: In contrast to Sub-Saharan Africa, the percentage of Latin American households citing this as their primary concerns has fallen substantially over time (from 54 percent of respondents in 2000 to roughly 31 percent in 2010). While this decline may represent significant progress, the remaining high levels suggest that the region continues to prioritize income-related issues.

• Exploding Latin American Security & Crime Worries: As noted previously, Latin American households are particularly concerned about security-related matters. This picture becomes even more striking when compared to previous periods. In 2000, only 5 percent of survey respondents cited this as their most pressing concern.26

• African Agriculture & Food Security Concerns Are Increasing: African households have become more concerned about food security related issues over time. Between 1999/2001 and 2008/2009, the increase totaled roughly 8 percentage points. However, it is difficult to discern the extent to which this was driven by the 2008 food crisis or whether household concerns have remained at a consistently high level over the last several years. More recent survey data is required to shed additional light on this trend.

• African Infrastructure Concerns Are Growing: As noted previously, infrastructure-related issues are a top priority of African households. Strikingly, these concerns have increased over time – rising from 10 percent of survey respondents in 1999/2001 to approximately 15 percent in 2008/2009.

The response rate for health-related issues was even lower in 2008/2009 when compared to the full set of Afrobarometer observations. This comparison includes eight additional countries that were not included in earlier Afrobarometer surveys (Benin, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Kenya, Liberia, Madagascar, Mozambique, and Senegal). The response rate for education-related concerns remained largely unchanged when the additional countries are included in the comparative analysis.

See figure 3 for Sub-Saharan Africa trends and appendix IV for Latin American information.

These observed changes appear to hold even when compared to the full sample of surveyed countries in 2008/2009. The response rate for the “comparable sample” was 37 percent while the “full sample” of countries was modestly lower at 36 percent.

Country selection bias does not appear to explain this dramatic shift. Only one country was added to Latin Barometer between 2000 and 2010 (Dominican Republic).

*NEXT PAGE – The “comparable sample” in 2008/2009 includes the same set of countries from 1999/2001. In contrast, the “full sample” in 2008/2009 contains eight additional countries, including: Benin, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Kenya, Liberia, Madagascar, Mozambique, and Senegal.

23

24

25

26

27

14

*Figure 3 – African Households: Primary Concerns (1st Response)27

Incomes/Poverty

Econ.Management

InfrastructureAgr.Food Security

Security GovernanceHealth Education GeneralGov’t

Demographics OtherDon’t Know

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

KEY:

1999-2001 2008-2009 (Comparable Sample) 2008-2009 (Full Sample)

30%

37%

36%

10%11%

19%

12%

10%

14%15%

9%

3%

10%

5%

3%

8%

4%

4%

2%3%

4%

6%

2%1%

0%0% 0%0%

2%

1%5%

20%

12%

Source: Afrobarometer and author’s calculations

15

African Perceptions of Government PerformanceHousehold views about national government effectiveness at addressing a range of issues can provide an additional insight into the post-2015 framework process. Importantly, global parties may wish to focus on those issues that are perceived to be unaddressed, or inadequately addressed, by national governments – particularly if these perceptions map closely to households’ most pressing concerns. At the same time, appropriate caution should be applied to these survey results. By illustration, it may be difficult to isolate whether domestic governments are truly addressing household priorities on their own. Or, whether external assistance, driven by the existing MDG priorities, is partly responsible for the government’s perceived performance. This is especially relevant in low-income countries that receive sizable aid flows.

With respect to Sub-Saharan Africa, both a positive and negative picture emerges from the Afrobarometer survey data (see appendix VII and VIII for details):

• Poor Performance Addressing Poverty: Between six- and seven-in-ten survey respondents stated that their government was performing either “very badly” or “fairly badly” at addressing job creation, living standards of the poor, and hunger.28

• Stronger Social Service Delivery: African governments seemingly perform much better at social service delivery, particularly at addressing HIV/AIDS and education needs. In fact, over three-in-four household respondents ranked their government as doing either “very well” or “fairly well” at addressing HIV/AIDS – up from nearly two-in-three households in 2002/2003 (see figure 4).

Figure 4 – African Households: Positive Perceptions of Government Performance

Living Standards of Poor

Job Creation Hunger Corruption (Fighting)

Water & Sanitation Services

Crime Health Service Quality

HIV/AIDS Educational Needs

KEY:

2002/3 2008/9 (Comparable Sample) 2008/09 (Full Sample)

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Source: Afrobarometer and author’s calculations

+9.6%

-1.2%

-4.3%

+3.2%-0.1%

+1.7%

-0.5%

+12.0%

-2.4%

However, positive perceptions of the government’s role (“very well” or “fairly well”) in addressing the poor’s living standards increased by nearly 10 percentage points during the observed time period. Nonetheless, nearly two-thirds of households still rate their government’s performance as “very bad” or “fairly bad”.

28

16

Key TakeawaysTaken together, the available survey data illustrate that African, Latin American, and East Asian households are likely most concerned with income- and poverty- related issues.

• Direct Income-Focused Measures: Roughly one-third of households cited income- and employment-related issues as their primary concern. This response rate spikes for specific sub-groups, such as African urban youth, which have response rates of up to nearly one-in-two citing this as their most pressing concern.

• Indirect Issues Affecting Households’ Economic Prospects: The examined regions also highlight a number of contextually-relevant indirect issues that impact economic prospects – such as economic management, infrastructure deficiencies, and agriculture & food security.29

Collectively, these direct and indirect issues account for between roughly 50 percent and 80 percent of household responses about their most pressing concerns.30 The two wild cards appear to be Latin American security and East Asian governance issues. In particular, the East Asian trends pose some intriguing trends and questions, which should be examined in greater detail.

These issues clearly also have non-economic related implications as well. For example, African infrastructure deficiencies also limit households’ access to social goods, such as health and education services.

When aggregated, these four issues account for: 82 percent of Sub-Saharan African households’ primary concerns; 71 percent of East Asian concerns; and 47 percent of Latin American households’ concerns.

29

30

17

Consultative Process PrinciplesThe UN and relevant stakeholders, such as the HLP, should give due consideration to several additional approaches that will enhance the existing consultative processes and the popular buy-in for, and relevance of, the post-2015 development framework. This will require significantly enhanced direct input from ordinary citizens, particularly from the world’s poorest citizens, as well as from marginalized populations. At present, there is a real risk that the consultative mechanisms now being contemplated will fall short of this standard and run the risk of being captured and dominated by the range of interest groups pursuing specific, narrow agendas. This would be a disservice to the world’s poorest citizens themselves, who risk once again being excluded from a critical conversation, with little or no say in efforts that will profoundly impact their own future. While a number of approaches would help to reduce this possibility, several should receive due consideration:

What the World Wants Poll: As a first priority, the UN and relevant stakeholders should support the implementation of a global quantitative survey of what households currently view as their most pressing near- and long-term concerns and priorities. This could have the added benefit of potentially shedding light on the existing debate between development and environmental priorities. Subject to the availability of financing, this poll could be repeated at regular intervals throughout the post-2015 development framework period.

Existing Survey Response Data: While the global poll is being prepared and implemented, the UN-led consultative process should draw upon existing survey data to the greatest extent possible. This information should be analyzed and presented by a disinterested independent body and in a consistent way across countries.31 Moreover, every effort should be made to expedite the delivery of unrelated (yet still highly relevant) existing survey collection efforts. A relevant example is the Afrobarometer ‘round five’ surveys that will provide publicly-available findings over the next year.

Independent Selection of UN Consultation Representatives: Currently, the decentralized UN-led country consultation process provides wide latitude for local UN officials to influence the selection of stakeholder representatives. As noted previously, this may prove an effective approach in certain countries, but likely will produce suboptimal outcomes on an aggregated basis. Therefore, a quality-control process should be put in place to ensure that the perspectives of ordinary citizens (versus interest or issue groups) are truly represented in national-level processes. Moreover, national consultation process reports should include a specific and clear presentation of existing survey data about broader population concerns and priorities.

Global Validation of Post-2015 Framework Recommendations: While the UN-led consultation process works towards delivering a series of post-2015 framework recommendations, efforts should be made now to establish globalized mechanisms to provide targeted input and feedback. This could take several forms.32 For example, the UN and relevant stakeholders could establish a global referendum on the post-2015 framework.33 This would provide a definitive and global seal of approval. Moreover, this would be especially relevant if the What the World Wants Poll is not pursued over the next 12-18 months.

How Could the UN-Led Process Be Improved?

1

2 4

3

This would include the development of a standardized template for presenting existing survey data.

One potential approach is a crowdsource-based model of soliciting input and validation from broad-based segments of society across the developed and developing world. For additional details, see Jamie Drummond’s TED talk www.ted.com/talks/jamie_drummond_how_to_set_goals_for_the_world.html

This would not require that UN Member States implement conventional referendums on the proposed post-2015 development framework. This would be impractical for logistical and financial reasons. However, the same type of methodologically-robust polling would prove both sufficient and credible to gauge public receptivity and buy-in.

31

32

33

18

Conclusion

Over the next few years, the global community will grapple with profound issues that will have a massive impact on development-related investments from domestic, external, and private sources during the next decade or two. The stakes are very high for negotiating a new global development framework that addresses the poor’s most pressing priorities and concerns. While the existing UN-led process has made noteworthy efforts to ensure that all relevant stakeholders are consulted, there is a real risk that the most important constituency (e.g., the

world’s poorest citizens) will not have as strong a voice in the debate as they deserve. The UN and relevant stakeholders should take expeditious steps now to ensure that these voices are solicited directly, internalized, and considered seriously. It is not only the credibility of the UN-led process and the relevance of the post-2015 framework that is on the line. Also at stake is a world where all people, especially the poorest among us, can truly own and chart their own course for the future.

19

Household Survey Responses in Africa, East Asia, & Latin America: Most Pressing ConcernsCountry Survey Year #Survey Resp. Incomes/Poverty Agriculture Economy Infrastructure Security Governance Health Education

Benin 2008 1200 28.20% 16.10% 17.90% 24.60% 1.60% 2.40% 4.60% 3.80%

Botswana 2008 1200 60.00% 10.70% 4.60% 5.90% 6.20% 1.70% 6.30% 0.90%

Burkina Faso 2008 1200 20.40% 19.80% 6.60% 28.60% 1.90% 2.80% 12.00% 3.90%

Cape Verde 2008 1200 72.70% 2.70% 3.20% 9.00% 5.20% 0.40% 2.20% 1.50%

Ghana 2008 1200 40.30% 5.50% 14.20% 22.90% 2.30% 2.40% 3.10% 6.10%

Kenya 2008 1200 25.60% 13.70% 28.70% 14.50% 6.40% 5.30% 1.90% 2.10%

Lesotho 2008 1200 41.60% 23.90% 4.40% 16.60% 5.20% 3.00% 2.00% 0.20%

Liberia 2008 1200 39.00% 16.30% 28.00% 13.20% 0.10% 0.00% 0.30% 3.30%

Madagascar 2008 1201 40.70% 21.00% 8.10% 10.70% 9.10% 2.70% 1.20% 2.90%

Malawi 2008 1199 12.50% 52.80% 6.70% 15.90% 1.80% 4.40% 3.30% 1.20%

Mali 2008 1199 18.80% 48.10% 0.30% 15.50% 2.40% 4.10% 5.10% 4.80%

Mozambique 2008 1200 36.30% 12.70% 5.10% 17.10% 3.80% 3.30% 7.70% 4.40%

Namibia 2008 1200 55.00% 10.40% 6.80% 8.50% 3.40% 4.20% 4.50% 6.20%

Nigeria 2008 1200 43.70% 14.70% 12.10% 15.00% 1.40% 6.40% 2.50% 4.20%

Senegal 2008 1200 17.60% 45.90% 16.20% 9.90% 0.70% 1.30% 5.20% 2.20%

South Africa 2008 1200 53.80% 3.30% 13.90% 7.80% 9.60% 2.80% 6.00% 2.40%

Tanzania 2008 1200 15.00% 16.10% 10.40% 30.00% 2.30% 7.40% 11.00% 5.00%

Uganda 2008 1200 44.30% 10.70% 13.80% 14.70% 3.10% 4.40% 6.30% 2.10%

Zambia 2009 1200 34.20% 26.80% 7.10% 11.70% 0.60% 3.40% 7.20% 7.60%

Zimbabwe 2009 1200 25.30% 14.80% 27.90% 9.00% 0.50% 3.80% 6.30% 11.60%

Cambodia 2008 887 8.20% 66.00% 0.50% 2.60% 7.40% 11.90% 1.40% 0.40%

China 2008 2717 15.00% 21.70% 27.60% 2.20% 4.90% 15.40% 1.40% 2.40%

Indonesia 2006 1569 41.50% 14.40% 19.90% 4.30% 4.70% 6.40% 1.90% 4.90%

Mongolia 2006 1147 55.40% 2.90% 6.10% 1.60% 0.60% 21.90% 2.60% 2.60%

Philippines 2005 1143 30.80% 3.30% 43.30% 0.90% 4.80% 13.20% 0.50% 1.20%

Singapore 2006 994 42.60% 1.00% 22.10% 2.90% 2.90% 3.30% 7.70% 3.70%

Taiwan 2006 1382 9.20% 0.70% 46.10% 1.70% 10.90% 14.10% 0.60% 2.30%

Thailand 2006 1444 39.50% 2.80% 35.80% 1.70% 8.30% 8.80% 0.70% 1.50%

Vietnam 2005 1087 37.40% 5.90% 23.70% 4.50% 1.60% 17.60% 1.60% 4.90%

Argentina 2010 1188 28.80% N/A 13.80% 0.40% 37.40% 7.50% 1.90% 5.60%

Bolivia 2010 1106 33.60% N/A 25.00% 1.50% 7.10% 25.00% 1.00% 2.10%

Brazil 2010 1171 23.60% N/A 1.20% 0.80% 21.60% 4.70% 34.30% 11.90%

Chile 2010 1177 39.50% N/A 4.40% 0.20% 19.30% 7.30% 14.00% 5.90%

Colombia 2010 1179 39.10% N/A 4.80% 0.10% 41.20% 6.10% 3.40% 3.90%

Costa Rica 2010 976 18.40% N/A 18.60% 1.10% 44.80% 8.00% 5.50% 1.40%

Dominican Republic 2010 974 24.80% N/A 24.30% 13.20% 22.50% 8.00% 2.10% 1.60%

Ecuador 2010 1167 38.30% N/A 23.40% 0.30% 26.70% 7.20% 1.10% 2.10%

El Salvador 2010 976 23.70% N/A 12.60% 0.40% 60.00% 2.30% 0.20% 0.20%

Guatemala 2010 970 21.60% N/A 15.80% 0.70% 52.60% 3.20% 1.60% 2.50%

Honduras 2010 947 36.50% N/A 12.50% 0.80% 29.90% 12.20% 1.30% 5.90%

Mexico 2010 1167 24.90% N/A 15.70% 0.30% 41.80% 8.40% 3.60% 3.50%

Nicaragua 2010 940 47.60% N/A 36.80% 1.00% 2.40% 7.20% 1.40% 1.10%

Panama 2010 963 18.20% N/A 16.70% 2.60% 56.40% 2.90% 1.00% 1.60%

Paraguay 2010 1177 48.50% N/A 7.60% 0.90% 22.90% 8.60% 6.50% 4.10%

Peru 2010 1119 39.40% N/A 19.30% 0.90% 20.70% 12.10% 1.90% 4.50%

Uruguay 2010 1047 35.40% N/A 12.70% 1.30% 34.00% 3.60% 6.20% 3.40%

Venezuela 2010 1182 14.80% N/A 6.30% 0.40% 66.40% 4.10% 1.80% 0.20%

Appendix I

Shading applies to only top three responses. Darker shading indicates a higher percentage of household survey respondents citing the issue as their most pressing concern.

20

Appendix II

Household Concerns: Thematic Aggregation Categories by Region

Category Afrobarometer Latin Barometer East Asian Barometer

Incomes/Poverty Wages, Incomes, and Salaries.Unemployment.Poverty / Destitution.

Housing.Orphans / Street Children / Homeless.

Low Salaries.Instability in Employment.Unemployment.Lack of Opportunities for Youth.

Housing Problems.Poverty.Distribution of Income, Social Justice.Gas, Fuel.

Wages, Income & Salaries (or income gap), Pension.Unemployment.Poverty and Destitution.

Housing.Orphans / Street Children / Homeless Children.Social Security, Social Welfare.

EconomicManagement

Management of Economy.Rates & Taxes.Loans / Credit.

Inflation / Prices Rises.Economy / Economical Problems / Financial.

Economics.Management of the Economy, Economic. Development.Rates & Taxes.

Loans, Credit, Debit.Inflation.International Trade, Globalization.Budget Deficit.

Agriculture &Food Security

Farming / Agriculture.Food Shortage / Famine.Drought.Land.

Agricultural Marketing.Farm Imputes.Barrage.Moulin.

Not Applicable. Land Privatization.Food / Agriculture / Environment.Basic Necessities (Price of Rice, Fuel, Spicy, etc).

Farming/ Agriculture / Fishing / Animal. Husbandry.Food Shortage / Famine.Land.

Infrastructure Transportation.Communications.Infrastructure / Roads.

Electricity.Water Supply.

Transport.Deficient Basic Services (Water, Electricity, etc).

Infrastructure.Transportation.Communications.

Infrastructure / Roads.Electricity.Water Supply.

Security Crime & Security.Political Violence.

War (International).Civil War.

Terrorism / Guerilla.Crime / Public Security.Border Conflicts.

Violence, Bands.Drug Trafficking.

Crime & Security.Political Violence.War International.

Civil War.Terrorism.National Defence.

Health Health.AIDS.Sickness / Disease.

Health ProblemsDrugs Consumption

HealthHealth (Medical Care)AIDS (& other Transmittable Diseases

Sickness / DiseasePublic Health HygieneFood & Drug Safety

Education Education. Education Problems Education, Educational FeeScience & Technology

GeneralGovernment

Corruption.Political Instability.Discrimination / Inequality.

Gender Issues / Women’s Rights.Democracy / Political Rights.

Environmental Problems, Pollution.Energy Problems.

Problems with Neighboring Countries.Global Warming.

Environment.Government Services.Natural Disaster (Drought, Flood, Earthquake, Hurricane, etc).

Services (Other).External Relations (Foreign Relations).Country-Specific Problems.

Governance Corruption.Political Instability / Ethnic Tensions.Discrimination / Inequality.Gender Issues / Women’s Rights.Democracy / Political Rights.

Violation of Human Rights.Corruption.Racial Discrimination.Political Problems, Situation.

Governance.Corruption.Political Instability / Political Divisions / Ethnic Tensions.Discrimination / Inequality.Gender Issues / Women’s Rights / Children’s Rights.Democracy / Political Rights / Protection of Rights.

Malfunction of Political Institutions.Government Efficiency.Constitution.Judiciary.Administrative Procedure.Public Service Independence from Politics.Irresponsible Leader / Government.General Social & Political Conditions.Natural Resources.

Demographics Emigration Social Problems. Social Anomaly (Suicide, Divorce, Moral Breakdown)ImmigrationAging Population

Growth of PopulationCultural Problems Under Social ChangeReligion Problem

Other/Don’t Know MissingNo Problems at AllOtherDon’t KnowNo Further Reply

Don’t Know.No Problem.

Not Asked.Nothing / No Problems.No Further Reply.Other Issues.

Unclassifiable, Inconceivable.Can’t Choose.Declined to Answer.

21

African Households: Primary Concerns (2nd Response)

Incomes/Poverty

Econ.Management

InfrastructureAgr.Food Security

Security GovernanceHealth Education GeneralGov’t

Demographics OtherDon’t Know

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

KEY:

1999-2001 2008-2009

23%24%

10%

6%

10%

18%

13%

21%

8%

4%

10% 10%

8%

5% 5%

1%

0%

2%

4%

Source: Afrobarometer and author’s calculations

14%

4%

0.5%

Appendix III

22

Latin American Households: Primary Concerns (1st Response)

Incomes/Poverty

Infrastructure Security Education Econ.Management

Governance Health GeneralGov’t

Demographics Other / Don’t Know

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

KEY:

2000 2010 (Comparable Sample) 2010 (Full Sample)

54%

31%31%

5%

1%1%

5% 6%

4% 4% 5%

14%

9%

8% 8%9%

5% 5%

8%

1%1%

0% 0%0% 0%2% 2%

15%

34%34%

Source: Latin Barometer and author’s calculations

Appendix IV

23

Most Pressing Problems

Age of Respondent Gender

18-29 30-49 50-64 65+ Male Female

Incomes/Poverty 39.40% 35.50% 32.20% 32.10% 36.00% 36.50%

Econ. Management 12.20% 12.40% 10.80% 8.30% 11.90% 11.70%

Agr./Food Security 16.20% 19.70% 22.60% 27.30% 18.70% 19.60%

Infrastructure 14.20% 15.30% 16.00% 16.10% 15.40% 14.70%

Security 3.30% 3.30% 3.80% 3.80% 3.70% 3.10%

Health 4.50% 5.10% 5.60% 4.60% 4.80% 5.20%

Education 4.00% 3.90% 3.60% 2.40% 3.90% 3.70%

General Gov't 0.20% 0.20% 0.20% 0.40% 0.20% 0.20%

Governance 3.50% 3.20% 3.00% 2.10% 3.80% 2.70%

Demographics 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Other/Don't Know 2.20% 1.30% 2.00% 3.10% 1.40% 2.50%

Most Pressing Problems

Employment Status Residence

No(not looking) No (looking) Yes, part time

(not looking)Yes, part time

(looking)Yes, full time (not looking)

Yes, full time (looking) Urban Rural

Incomes/Poverty 28.60% 40.50% 35.10% 41.50% 37.80% 42.30% 44.30% 31.80%

Econ. Management 10.50% 11.50% 12.50% 13.30% 13.20% 14.70% 14.30% 10.40%

Agr./Food Security 27.10% 16.50% 18.90% 14.80% 12.90% 12.50% 13.20% 22.80%

Infrastructure 16.30% 14.90% 14.50% 14.80% 13.80% 12.70% 9.10% 18.40%

Security 3.00% 3.10% 3.80% 3.10% 5.40% 3.50% 4.10% 2.90%

Health 5.40% 4.60% 7.10% 3.50% 5.20% 4.20% 4.70% 5.00%

Education 4.00% 3.60% 3.60% 3.60% 4.50% 4.00% 3.60% 3.90%

General Gov't 0.30% 0.20% 0.20% 0.20% 0.20% 0.40% 0.30% 0.20%

Governance 2.80% 3.00% 2.50% 3.50% 5.40% 4.30% 4.30% 2.80%

Demographics 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.10% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Other/Don't Know 2.20% 2.10% 1.80% 1.50% 1.60% 1.30% 2.10% 1.80%

Source: Afrobarometer (2008-2009) and author’s calculations

Appendix V

Sensitivity Analysis: Sub-Saharan Africa

24

Most Pressing Problems

Age of Respondent Gender

17-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ Male Female

Incomes/Poverty 34.10% 30.70% 29.40% 27.80% 25.40% 29.40% 27.70% 31.40%

Econ. Management 22.60% 27.70% 27.30% 27.50% 25.50% 24.30% 26.40% 26.40%

Agr./Food Security 11.40% 12.30% 14.10% 12.90% 15.00% 10.30% 13.00% 12.70%

Governance 12.00% 12.80% 11.30% 13.00% 14.40% 13.50% 14.40% 10.70%

Security 5.50% 4.30% 5.00% 5.00% 6.00% 7.30% 5.20% 5.30%

General Gov't 4.40% 3.00% 3.90% 4.20% 4.20% 5.50% 4.80% 3.10%

Education 3.70% 2.80% 2.70% 2.80% 2.00% 1.90% 2.10% 3.40%

Infrastructure 2.10% 2.50% 2.30% 3.00% 2.60% 2.60% 2.50% 2.40%

Demographics 2.30% 1.70% 2.10% 1.80% 2.10% 2.80% 1.80% 2.10%

Health 1.60% 1.80% 1.60% 1.70% 2.30% 2.10% 1.80% 1.70%

Other/Don't know 0.40% 0.10% 0.30% 0.40% 0.50% 0.70% 0.40% 0.30%

Most Pressing Problems

Income Level Residence

Lowest Quintile 2nd Quintile 3rd Quintile 4th Quintile Top Quintile Urban Rural

Incomes/Poverty 34.70% 32.40% 32.70% 32.10% 33.40% 30.00% 29.00%

Econ. Management 31.50% 26.50% 23.00% 24.00% 20.80% 28.20% 24.70%

Agr./Food Security 8.00% 12.50% 14.10% 11.80% 10.70% 8.30% 17.00%

Governance 10.30% 10.70% 12.30% 14.40% 14.90% 12.60% 12.60%

Security 5.60% 5.60% 5.40% 5.20% 3.80% 5.00% 5.40%

General Gov't 2.40% 3.50% 3.10% 2.60% 4.30% 5.00% 3.20%

Education 2.10% 2.00% 2.50% 3.00% 4.70% 3.40% 2.10%

Infrastructure 2.20% 2.60% 2.20% 2.40% 3.10% 1.50% 3.20%

Demographics 1.40% 2.00% 2.80% 2.20% 2.40% 3.40% 0.80%

Health 1.60% 2.20% 2.20% 2.40% 1.70% 2.30% 1.30%

Other/Don't know 0.20% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.10% 0.20% 0.40%

Appendix V

Source: East Asian Barometer (2005-2008) and author’s calculations

Sensitivity Analysis: East Asia

25

Most Pressing Problems

Age of Respondent Gender

15-25 26-40 41-60 61+ Male Female

Incomes/Poverty 31.90% 31.80% 31.10% 28.00% 31.80% 30.20%

Infrastructure 1.50% 1.50% 1.20% 1.70% 1.50% 1.30%

Security 33.00% 33.10% 32.90% 37.40% 32.30% 34.70%

Education 4.30% 3.90% 2.80% 2.50% 3.80% 3.30%

Econ. Management 14.30% 15.40% 14.90% 13.00% 13.40% 15.90%

Governance 7.90% 7.80% 7.50% 8.00% 9.60% 6.00%

Health 4.00% 4.30% 6.70% 6.40% 4.60% 5.80%

General Gov't 1.50% 0.80% 0.80% 0.60% 0.80% 1.00%

Demographics 0.10% 0.10% 0.20% 0.30% 0.10% 0.20%

Other/Don't Know 1.40% 1.40% 1.90% 2.60% 1.90% 1.50%

Most Pressing Problems

Education Level Socioeconomic Status

Low Middle High Very Good Good Not Bad Bad Very Bad

Incomes/Poverty 33.80% 29.40% 26.70% 20.80% 27.50% 32.40% 39.20% 43.60%

Infrastructure 1.70% 1.20% 1.00% 1.50% 1.30% 1.40% 1.80% 0.60%

Security 32.00% 36.00% 33.50% 42.20% 36.00% 32.80% 27.20% 25.80%

Education 2.20% 3.40% 7.40% 7.20% 4.70% 2.50% 2.00% 1.90%

Econ. Management 15.60% 14.30% 13.10% 11.00% 13.70% 15.90% 15.20% 15.30%

Governance 6.30% 7.40% 12.40% 10.20% 8.70% 7.40% 5.70% 5.70%

Health 6.20% 4.90% 2.80% 4.40% 5.50% 4.80% 6.20% 5.60%

General Gov't 1.10% 0.90% 0.80% 0.80% 0.70% 1.00% 1.30% 0.60%

Demographics 0.10% 0.20% 0.30% 0.30% 0.20% 0.10% 0.10% 0.00%

Other/Don't Know 1.20% 2.10% 2.20% 1.60% 1.70% 1.80% 1.40% 1.00%

Appendix V

Source: Latin Barometer (2010) and author’s calculations

Sensitivity Analysis: Latin America

26

Sub-Saharan Africa

Most Pressing Problems No formal schooling

Informal schooling only

Some primary schooling

Primary school

completed

Some secondary

school

Secondary school

completed

Post-secondary (not univ)

Some university

University completed Post-graduate

Incomes/Poverty 26.50% 24.90% 33.10% 34.00% 41.10% 44.40% 45.40% 47.40% 48.90% 42.30%

Econ. Management 8.60% 8.50% 9.20% 11.20% 13.20% 15.20% 17.20% 18.50% 15.40% 17.90%

Agr./Food Security 28.40% 35.80% 25.70% 17.80% 14.50% 10.10% 8.90% 9.30% 5.80% 8.40%

Infrastructure 20.70% 16.50% 15.70% 18.40% 13.40% 10.50% 9.30% 5.90% 8.60% 6.20%

Security 2.00% 2.00% 3.80% 3.20% 3.60% 3.90% 4.50% 3.90% 4.70% 6.80%

Health 5.30% 6.60% 4.50% 6.00% 4.80% 4.20% 3.70% 4.90% 3.60% 1.70%

Education 3.70% 2.10% 3.00% 3.40% 4.40% 4.80% 4.70% 3.70% 4.90% 3.20%

General Gov't 0.20% 0.20% 0.20% 0.30% 0.10% 0.40% 0.30% 0.50% 0.60% 0.00%

Governance 1.80% 2.10% 2.00% 3.50% 3.40% 5.20% 5.50% 5.40% 6.90% 12.70%

Demographics 0.10% 0.10% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Other/Don't Know 2.80% 1.30% 2.60% 2.10% 1.50% 1.20% 0.40% 0.70% 0.70% 0.60%

Asia

Most Pressing Problems No formal schooling Some primary Complete

primary

Some secondary (technical)

Complete secondary (technical)

Some secondary

Complete secondary

Some university education

University education completed

Post-graduate degree

Incomes/Poverty 34.90% 24.20% 32.20% 29.40% 32.10% 21.20% 29.30% 27.70% 31.90% 27.40%

Econ. Management 13.60% 16.20% 29.20% 31.80% 27.30% 19.60% 29.40% 33.10% 27.30% 31.00%

Agr./Food Security 25.90% 30.10% 11.30% 12.10% 10.90% 26.90% 6.50% 3.20% 4.30% 2.40%

Governance 7.00% 11.10% 10.50% 9.90% 12.60% 12.60% 14.40% 17.80% 16.90% 11.30%

Security 8.80% 4.90% 6.80% 4.40% 3.80% 5.20% 5.10% 6.10% 3.90% 6.40%

General Gov't 1.80% 2.80% 2.90% 3.60% 3.40% 3.60% 5.90% 4.60% 4.30% 9.40%

Education 0.50% 2.30% 1.40% 2.30% 2.40% 3.00% 3.90% 3.00% 4.40% 3.90%

Infrastructure 2.40% 3.50% 3.00% 2.40% 2.60% 3.40% 1.70% 1.90% 1.20% 0.70%

Demographics 2.40% 1.60% 0.90% 2.20% 2.40% 2.40% 2.10% 1.10% 3.60% 6.00%

Health 2.70% 2.60% 1.40% 1.60% 2.00% 2.60% 1.30% 1.40% 2.30% 1.70%

Other/Don't know 0.00% 0.70% 0.50% 0.60% 0.70% 0.00% 0.10% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Appendix V

Sensitivity Analysis: By Education Level

27

Latin America

Most Pressing Problems Illiterate Some primary Complete primary

Some secondary (technical)

Complete secondary (technical)

Some high Complete high

Incomes/Poverty 35.00% 34.80% 31.70% 30.00% 29.10% 26.90% 26.30%

Infrastructure 2.20% 1.70% 1.30% 1.60% 1.00% 1.50% 0.50%

Security 30.20% 29.50% 35.60% 37.00% 35.30% 34.20% 32.80%

Education 2.10% 2.10% 2.30% 2.20% 4.20% 6.90% 7.90%

Econ. Management 17.10% 14.50% 15.80% 14.60% 14.00% 13.10% 13.00%

Governance 6.30% 6.30% 6.30% 6.40% 8.10% 11.60% 13.10%

Health 4.70% 8.30% 5.00% 4.60% 5.10% 2.60% 2.80%

General Gov't 1.10% 1.20% 0.80% 1.20% 0.80% 0.80% 0.80%

Demographics 0.00% 0.20% 0.10% 0.10% 0.20% 0.20% 0.40%

Other/Don't Know 1.10% 1.40% 1.00% 2.00% 2.20% 2.10% 2.30%

Appendix V

Source: Latin Barometer (2010) and author’s calculations

Sensitivity Analysis: By Education Level

28

African Business Survey Responses: “Major Constraints”

Crim

e

Source: World Bank Business Enterprise Surveys and author’s calculations

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

% o

f Sur

vey

Resp

onde

nts

Elec

tric

ity

Acce

ss to

Fin

ance

Pol S

tabi

lity

Corr

uptio

n

Tax

Rate

Info

rmal

s

Tran

spor

t

Tax

Adm

in

Cust

oms

Wor

ker S

kills

Acce

ss to

Lan

d

Lice

nsin

g

Labo

r Reg

ulat

ions

68%

56%56%

48%

40% 40%

38%

35%

33%

28%

27%

26%

23%

10%

Appendix VI

29

African Households (2002/3): Perceptions of Government Performance (By Issue)

Source: Afrobarometer and author’s calculations

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

26%

30% 36

% 43% 50

%

52%

63%

65%

68%

Living Standards of Poor

Job Creation Hunger Corruption (Fighting)

Water & Sanitation Services

Crime Health Service Quality

HIV/AIDS Educational Needs

KEY:

Missing Very Badly Fairly Badly Fairly Well Very Well

Appendix VII

22%

32%

7%

35%

4%

4%

26%

34%

31%

4%

4%

25%

34%

30%

6%

11%

32%

25%

22%

11%

38%

28%

19%

4%

12%

4%

22%

24%

40%

12%

2%

12%

23%

48%

15%

8%

12%

15%

43%

22%

3%

11%

19%

47%

21%

30

African Households (2008/9): Perceptions of Government Performance (By Issue)

KEY:

Very Badly Fairly Badly Fairly Well Very Well

Source: Afrobarometer and author’s calculations

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

29%

31 %

35%

47%

48%

52% 62

%

66% 76

%

Job Creation Hunger Living Standards of Poor

Corruption (Fighting)

Water & Sanitation Services

Crime Health Service Quality

Educational Needs

HIV/AIDS

Appendix VIII

24%

40%

31%

5%

25%

31%

38%

6%

36%

29%

29%

6%

35%

25%

28%

12%

37%

26%

25%

11%

24%

24%

40%

12%

17%

21%

46%

16%

15%

19%

47%

19%

10%

14%

44%

32%